Tuesday, March 27, 2012

During the Supreme Court hearing today, Justice Sotomayor said that the people who do not enter into commerce and buy insurance are entering into commerce by NOT buying it. Yeah, I know. That sounds like a moronic statement with no justification. I'm not surprised, however, that she makes such an ignorant statement.

To say we are entering into commerce by NOT entering into it is the ultimate stupidity.

She goes on to say that, by not entering into commerce and buying insurance, it makes the cost higher for others, and effectively makes them a party to commerce because they are affecting it.

I guess she missed it - we ALL "affect" commerce, either by participating or not participating. Example: electric cars. We do not all buy a electric cars. But according to Sotomayor and other liberals, if we did, the cost of electric cars would come down. Those who are NOT buying one are affecting the price for those who do, so we need to mandate that everyone buy one. We need to force a person into commerce so that we can regulate them.

The problem, of course, is twofold. First, the cost would not come down - supply and demand would dictate that the price goes up. Second, those who do not buy the car, though they may be "affecting" commerce, are not INVOLVED in commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

A note to Sotomayor - there is a world of difference between AFFECTING commerce and PARTICIPATING in it. I do not play football. By choosing not to PARTICIPATE, I am affecting the sport because I am not dragging down an otherwise capable team with my clumsiness. And therein lies the difference between participating, and affecting. Affecting something does not translate into PARTICIPATING in it.

According to a HuffPost "story", a study by the liberals at University of Michigan "analyzed the careers of 4,300 women which shows that the earlier a woman can start taking birth control pills, the more likely she is to earn higher wages later in life."

How absurd! The two cannot podssibly be connected because employers have no way of knowing if female employees are using birth control. And everyone (except liberals trying to push an agenda) knows that there has never been any restricted access to birth control since the first pill was prescribed. No, it wasn't free, but it wasn't hard to get, either.

For anyone to assume, without any supporting facts, that an increase of pay for women is associated not with employers finding value in female employees, but rather because birth control is "more accessible" (it is not) is nothing short of a transparent, dishonest attempt to twist the facts to support their liberal agenda,

That's like saying an increase in gay marriages has led to more people being gay.

On TV today a liberal "journalist" said, "When is a person too old to get a new heart?"

Anyone who even asks such a stupid question does not even have a heart. I would have asked that journalist, "If that 72 year old was your mother instead of a Republican VP named Cheney, would you STILL think 72 is too old to get a new heart? Or what if it were YOU?"

That's the problem with liberals in a nutshell. And it goes to show how they think - as long as it hurts someone they do not care about, that's fine. But not when it affects them.

It also explains why it is progressive liberals who have advocated euthanasia for those too old to offer anything to society - unless, of course, it is THEM, or their loved ones.

Anyone who doubts for a minute that the liberal mindset behind ObamaCare will result in rationing based on cost vs usefulness simply is not living in reality. When the unelected bureaucrat "committee" decides a procedure - like a heart transplant - is too expensive compared to the value of the person needing it, that person will be denied. Because even the government does not have access to unlimited money. Need proof? The FDA has already revoked approval of two very expensive drugs (previously approved) BECAUSE of their expense. And without FDA approval, insurance companies - including Medicare - will not cover them. So, today there are people dying because they cannot get the drug that will help them to live, simply because the government does not want to pay for it.

Back to the point --- I find it reprehensible that people in the liberal media - and progressives in general - believe that life-saving procedures should be limited to certain people that THEY approve it. It says all you need to know about progressive liberals and the lamestream media.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

My daughter received her tax refund yesterday, and inside with the check was an insert from INVESTOR.GOV, a website that purportedly is designed to help Americans invest wisely.

Hm-m-m.

This from the same government that invested $2 billion in "green" companies that all went bankrupt. A government that LOST nearly $2 billion taxpayer dollars with their own very unwise investments.

In fact, the Energy Department and Obama were warned that Solyndra was going bankrupt and was a very risky business, yet they gave them over half a billion, anyway. And now every penny is gone.

Yep! The government thinks they are in a position to teach US how to invest wisely. I say the best investment we could make is to vote this November and replace all liberal and progressive politicians of either party with true conservatives. America has always done best under a conservative roof.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

When I first blogged that Google was the most serious threat to the American way of life, most people scoffed. But as time wore on and Google got caught many times, fewer people are scoffing.

It seemed innocuous at first - little things, like breaching privacy in small ways. And censoring certain sites. They they moved to eliminate sites that they did not like, or thought were not in the best interests of Google. Recently, they changed their privacy policy so that now all your information is at risk, and being used however Google sees fit. They collect every little scrap of info they can. In fact, it recently came out that Google, while roaming the country taking pictures for Google Earth Street View, they were also tapping in (illegally) to every WiFi within reach, and collecting personal info - including passwords, banking info and emails.

And now Google, in an effort to grow even richer and more powerful has begun attacking blogs that businesses use for Search Engine Optimization, to help get their sites listed. By attacking these blogs and taking away the rankings of businesses, they figure they can force businesses to PAY for their listings via Pay Per Click. In fact, I am no longer allowed to even Tweet my blog as I had always done - being a Google product, it appears they are blocking it from being Tweeted. More censorship.

It is no secret that GOOGLE is run by socialist progressive liberals. They even admitted to fomenting the Egyptian Uprising, resulting in an anti-American regime that wants to also destroy Israel. And everyone knows that progressive liberals yearn to control every aspect of everyone else's lives, from cradle to grave. And Google is intent on doing just that.

Mark my words, as time goes on GOOGLE will abuse its power to control you even more. It will use its power to strip away choices, such as what you eat, or who you should vote for.

A very old saying (it got old because it is so true) says, "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." And Google has great power - greater even than the President of the United States.

Google is not only corrupt, but a dangerous threat to everything Americans have valued for 250 years - our freedoms, and our Constitution. Google, friend of George Soros, strives to do away with both.

There is another old saying - he who controls the information controls the world.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Today two top executives of the Komen Foundation announced their resignations. And the way the Huffington Post and other liberal outlets are playing it is trult fascinating. Here is an excerpt from HuffPost:

"Komen has been struggling to repair its reputation since the public backlash over its decision, at the beginning of February, to pull cancer screening grants from Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics perform abortions. Komen ultimately decided to restore Planned Parenthood's eligibility for grants, but the public had already soured on the charity for focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer."

According to the left, the trpoubles of the Komen foundation are simply because Americans are not forgiving and still hold it against Komen for trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately for the left, the facts tell a somewhat different story.

Komen's current troubles - including the resignations today - are a result of once again funding Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. The majority of Americans oppose funding abortions, as every poll shows. And now contributions to Komen are down big time - and that is directly attributed to donors not wanting to be pparty to abortions.

So yes, Komen is losing money fast. And execs are resigning. But it is not because of any far-left "outcry" by a handful of far-left loons. It is because most donors, like myself, had not been aware that our money was being used for abortions, and now that we know that abortions are being funded, we no longer support Komen. Period.

You can believe whatever you want, but the facts show that Komen is hurting because they DO fund Planned Parenthood.

This is very strange - all the big news agencies posted a story, and in record time, they all began yanking it down, making the story disappear. Strange indeed. As far as I can tell, it can only be found in one place - http://www.theblaze.com/ (which took screenshots) and the only references to it are here and at Glenn Beck's site.

First, the story behind the story. Obama's State Department issued a formal warning against any American traveling to Mexico. Too dangerous. Stay away from Mexico.

Now the "almost a" story. Obama sends his 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER to Mexico on spring break, along with 25 Secret Service on the taxpayer's dime. Frankly, I think any parent who would send a 13 year old to Mexico has got to be nuts. And any parent who allows a 13 year old to go on ANY Spring Break is also nuts. But imagine, if you will, if a drug cartel member were to get their hands on the President's daughter. The cartels outnumber and outgun 25 Secret Service.

And now for the REAL story - as soon as this story was reported, someone in a position of great power appears to have squelched it. Who could force the largest news agencies in the world to pull a story?

Sunday, March 18, 2012

We have already lost in Afghanistan - we lost the day President Obama set a date to pull out. And that is not just rhetoric.

Afghan President Karzai is not popular with half the population of Afghanistan - the only thing that keeps his own people from stringing him up on a lamppost is the presence of our troops. So, the minute we announced a date to leave, Karzaihad only one choice if he wants to live - he had to become anti-American, endearing himself to the rabble he leads.

Since the announcement of our "leave date", Karzai has looked for any and every opportunity to "become" unfriendly to the U.S. It is the only way he can survive when we pull out.

In short terms, it means everything we have done - all the treasure and blood spent in Afganistan - was all for naught. We lost. And not only did we lose, but we made matters worse by turning Afghanistan against us.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Last night President Obama hosted a State Dinner for Britsish Prime Minister David Cameron. But there are a host of issues with this.

First, a State Dinner is supposed to be reserved only for Heads of State - hence the name. Mr. Cameron is not a Head of State - Queen Elizabeth is. But that is, I suppose, a technicality. The real corruption lies in others who were invited.

It seems Obama invited 41 of his top bundlers, people who raised over $8 million for his campaign. And this raises an ethics question - can a person buy a seat at a State Dinner by raising campaign funds for the President? And if so, does that not constitute a campaign activity? If so, it is ILLEGAL for taxpayers to pay for said dinner. And it was a VERY hefty tab, with over 350 people in attendance, and served a wine so expensive the name and vintage was not disclosed.

Obama has often thwarted the law by campaigning on the taxpayer's dime, which is unlawful. And this particular episode smacks us right in the face.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

It's hard to turn on the TV these days without seeing that ad which states that your body cannot tell the difference between corn sugar and cane sugar, and therefore high fructose corn sugar is safe.

Not true. Studies around the world have proven there are vasy differences. One of the most compelling is the study done at Princeton University. When they fed rates normal cane suger and water with their diet, they remained healthy. But when fed High Fructose corn sugar in water at even 1/2 dose, every single rat became obese. In study after study the results were the same.

High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there are at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

This seemingly minor difference makes all the difference in the world. And it appears that high fructose corn sugar is largely responsible for the high rate of obesity in America - most soft drinks and many processed foods contain HFCS.

So, why are they spending millions on ads to convince us that HFCS is no different from ordinary sugar? Money. High fructose corn syrup costs only a small fraction of what sugar costs.

So, the nest time you see that commercial saying all sugars are the same, you will know better. You will know the truth.

I recently heard Democrats reciting the tired old mantra that there is no point in opening up new drilling for oil because "it would take 10 years before we get the oil."

I remember 2002 like it was yesterday. Republicans wanted to drill in ANWR, but Democrats said there was no point because "it would take 10 years before we get that oil" to market.

Imagine, if the Democrats had not gotten in the way in 2002 using that stupid excuse, we would have that oil today. And now they use that same lame excuse, which means in 10 years we STILL won't have that oil.

That excuse is so dumb on every level. It's like saying you are not going to contribute to your 401K because it will be years before you can spend it.

If Eisenhower had said that about the years it would take to build the highway system, we'd still be taking forever to get anywhere. Or if Roosevelt had used that excuse to not spend years building the Panama canal.

C'mon, liberals - if you want to prevent drilling, at least come up with a sane, plausible excuse instead of the lame "we won't get it today.".

By the way, if we block the EPA's ability to misuse its power, it would not take 10 years. We could have that oil in three.

Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Injustice has blocked the Texas "Voter I.D." law, stating it disenfrasnchises the poor, hispanics, African-Americans. But if the truth be known, Eric Holder and other liberals simply oppose integrity in the voting process, and the following is proof.

We all know that you need I.D. to get married. So, the only potential people to be disenfranchised are single people - roughly 99 million.

Of those, 51.6 million are educated with at least a high school diploma, so they likely enjoy at least a modicum of success. Which means they must have I.D. So, that leaves 9.1 million possibilities.

Of those, 88% have a driver's license, leaving 1.9 million

Of those, 75% drink alcohol at least once in awhile, which requires I.D. That leaves 273,000

Of those, 4.8% smoke but do not drink - also requires I.D. That leaves 259,896.

Of those, 94% have a bank account, requiring I.D. That leaves 15,593.

One in every 7 people collect some form of government assistance which requires I.D. leaving 13,365

If you subtract any of those who have flown, seen an "R" rated movie, purchased Sudafed or got a library card, the number of people that may not have photo I.D. drops to around 10,000 or less. In a country of 300 million, that's only one person in every 30,000. And, whereas only 52% of the population votes at all, that means only 1 person in every 60,000 COULD be without proper I.D.

What's more, there are roughly 9.8 million legal adults in Texas, so roughly 163 Texas adults COULD be without proper I.D.

And every one of them has access to free I.D. if they want it. So, there are none who are "disenfranchised".

But Holder and other liberals do not care that their argument is absurdly bogus. All they care about is allowing illegals and dead people to vote - often.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

This is something we need to get repealed if the economy is ever going to heal itself. And the best way to repeal it before it takes effect is to elect Republicans into the House, Senate and the White House. It is ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners each year.
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home. If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013!

Why 2013? Could it be so it would come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.

This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either.

And that's not all - there are nasty surprises coming for people on Medicare, too. and you probably haven't heard about it in the liberal media. The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:$104.20 in 2012, then up to $120.20 in 2013 and then in 2014 that monthly fee will be jacked WAY up to $247.00. I guess the Democrats figure the elderly and sick can afford it.

The insidious part of all this is that these are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation that were purposely delayed so as not to hurt Obama's chances in the 2012 election. Then in 2013, we were to find out about these nasty things - too late!
REMEMBER THIS IN NOVEMBER 2012 AND VOTE!!!
Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay:

Social Security Retirees
Military Retirees
Social Security disability and Federal Retirees

Now.. Let this sink in really good -

He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliensHe did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmatesHe did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hiredHe did not offer to cut down on his or his wife's frivolous galavanting aroundHe did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staffHe did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipientsHe did not threaten the food stamp programsHe did not threaten to not pay foreign aidHe did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters

His type of change is destroying our country.
LET'S MAKE 2012 - THE END OF AN ERROR!

"Democracy... Is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty... Is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

I guess even the old Yankee stronghold of New Hampshire would have to succumb to the stupidity of Political Correctness eventually and liberal foolishness. And today is the day.

Residents of a rural Mont Vernon New Hampshire will have a chance to vote Tuesday night on whether to rename a fishing and skating spot that's been called Jew Pond since the 1920s.

Mont Vernon town health officer Rich Masters pushed for the vote. "I, frankly, find it to be inappropriate, disrespectful to some people," he said, "and I feel it needs to be changed."

Well, Mr. Masters, that only goes to show that you are the bigoted one, since the first thing that comes to your little mind is something "offensive" in the word JEW. Do you also find the word CHRISTIAN offensive?

Maybe Mr. Masters needs a history lesson - there was a hotel at the man-made pond. In the 1920's the hotel was purchased by two Jewish businessmen. Hence, the pond was called "Jew Pond" in reference to the owners. (When I was a kid, a pond owned by the Gould family was called "Gould Pond" - it did not "offend" anyone).

There is nothing offensive about the word Jew, unless you happen to be an anti-semite. Not that Mr. Masters is an anti-semite, but he may want to rethink his outlook on certain things.

Reading HuffPost for my daily laughs. Among the posts are dozens that blame Republicans for America not having a budget. But the fact is, the House and Senate were completely Democrat for two years, and they did not even PROPOSE a budget. The the Republicans got into the House in 2010 and have sent budgets to the senate - and Democrat Harry Reid has stalled every one, refusing to even take them up for a vote.

So, liberals, just for the record and for the sake of a bit of honesty, America has been without a budget for 3 years because Democrats have absolutely refused to pass one. Why? Because if you have a budget, you have to live within it. And Democrats only want to spend without limits.

Monday, March 12, 2012

I was watching a liberal female attorney named Brandt on TV, trying to convince Laura Ingraham that Republicans are, indeed, waging a war on women. According to her, contraception (which, by the way, was never even the issue) should be free to all, simply because it is a "health issue" - women NEED it, and cannot always AFFORD it. Therefore, it should be FREE to all.

So, let's follow that line a bit...

Shelter is a health issue - without it, we can die of exposure. Therefore, it should be free to all. And food - Lord knows we would perish without it (we would not perish without contraceptives). Therefore, food should be free to all. And let's not forget warm clothing, necessary to keep us from exposure. And heating fuel - we would freeze to death without it. And then there's gasoline - without gas we cannot get to work to buy the things we need, or get to the doctor's office. So, gasoline should be free to all.

All of the above are necessary for life. Contraception is not. Yet liberals try to claim contraceptives should be free to all because they are a "health issue" (they are not), that they are necessary (they are not) and some people cannot afford them (contraceptives are free in almost every community already).

As for the so-called "war on women", Brandt said that all republicans are waging war on women, as evidenced by a single remark by Rush Limbaugh. And that equals a war on women. Hm-m-m. But then I have to ask, if one derogatory comment by a radio host indicates a war on women, then what about Bill Maher using worse slurs for Sarah Palin, and Jerry Brown calling Meg Whitman a whore, and Laura Ingraham called the same by another Democrat? In fact, I can cite over 90 examples of powerful Democrats who have badly slandered women. So, why does THAT not constitute a "war on women" by Democrats?

There is no war on women by Republicans, but there certainly appears to be a war on conservative women by Democrats.

Meanwhile, the sense of entitlement by people like Brandt, or Fluke, only goes to show what this bogus "war on women" is really all about - it's about liberals who want more entitlements, more free stuff, and to blame "hateful Republicans" who want to get in the way. In fact, Brandt even suggested that Day Care should be free. There is no end to the entitlements they will go after.

The problem lies in two pesky little facts - 1) we cannot afford it, and 2) nothing is ever free. Someone, somewhere is paying. Liberals and conservatives both believe in "give and take". Conservatives believe we should all give so we can all take as needed, while liberals believe conservatives should give and liberals should take.

Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic – African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students. Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud.

When a THINKING person who does not have a far-left look at life thinks about it, the liberal argument does not hold water simply because all those "disenfranchised poor people" already have photo I.D. IF they are legal residents.

When you ask a liberal "What poor person does not collect some sort of government aid - all of which require I.D.?", they stammer. And since state-issued photo I.D. is usually offered free, that also shoots down their bogus argument that legal residents are somehow "unable" to obtain I.D.

And when you remind a liberal that voter fraud happens often - in fact, several democrats have already been convicted - their assertion that "voter fraud is not a problem" is just so much hooey.

Here is yet another fact that liberals do not like to have pointed out - ANYONE, legal or illegal resident - can vote in any state where I.D. is not required. And illegals will vote for people who will make them legal and give them free stuff - Democrats. And that is precisely why Democrats so strongly oppose voter I.D. laws.

I think there should be a federal law requiring all voters to provide a photo I.D. before entering a voting booth, and anyone poor enough to be collecting state or federal aid would receive a waiver on any cost to procure such I.D.

But for liberals to say legal residents are somehow disenfranchised, EVERY PERSON in the groups they named do, indeed, have I.D. College students need I.D. to get on campus or use campus facilities. And most have a driver's license. In fact, a photo I.D. is required to buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, drive a vehicle, collect any state or federal aid, get married...the list goes on. The ONLY people who do not have I.D. are hermits (they do not vote) and illegals (they cannot vote).

I made this offer before - bring me ONE LEGAL CITIZEN of the United States who does not have I.D., wants I.D., but cannot afford it or cannot get it. Just bring me ONE, and I will start advocating to erase all voter I.D. laws.

So, once again Eric Holder has shown himself to have complete disregard for justice, the Constitution and "we, the people". So why is he still in office????

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Huffington Post/AOL is making a big deal that Governor Christie of NJ called a Navy SEAL an idiot. So here is what their story DOES NOT tell you (who says HuffPost would ever deceive):

The SEAL was heckling the governor, and kept trying to talk over him during his talk with voters. The SEAL refused to stop his heckling, and was escorted out by police. And the crowd CHEERED Governor Christie for his handling of the escapade, so apparently the folks believe Christie was correct - just because a guy is a SEAL does not mean he cannot be an idiot.

Come to find out, this "SEAL" heckler is a career heckler, who has been known to "stalk" Republican political candidates.

Still, one must wonder why Huffington Post/AOL would purposely conceal these facts. Actually, no - we do not wonder about that at all. I'm just being sarcastic. We all know why HuffPost would slant a story.

And, yes, if a president can be a progressive socialist, then a SEAL can certainly be an idiot.

The "story" comes from an attempt by Georgia to propose a bill that would prevent abortions after 20 weeks. During the debate on the floor, Mr . England recounted a story that a man had told him, and is quoted as follows:

""[The man] said, ‘Mr. Terry, I want to tell you something. You tell those folks down there when they quit killing babies, they can have every chicken I’ve got,'" England said."

Now, while I am a bit confused as to how his little story relates to the issue at hand, I am left scratching my head and trying really hard to see how anyone can say that Mr. England is comparing women to animals. He is not, and neither is the man who told him that.

But according to Huffington Post, it is cut and dried and a Republican compared women to animals. If you ask me, Huffington Post is run by farm animals - jackasses - and can legitimately be compared to Mein Kampf.

And upon reading the comments posted by HP subscribers, they appear to be about as bright as farm animals. Sorry if this insults farm animals.

That's right. In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen - a 7 percent stake in the company.

Because U.S. taxpayers still own roughly one-quarter of GM, they now own a piece of Peugeot.

Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash. Last year, Peugeot's auto making division lost $123 million. And on March 1 - just a day after the deal with GM was announced - Moody's downgraded Peugeot's credit rating to junk status with a negative outlook, citing "severe deterioration" of its finances

In other words, General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

So, the pretty young girl in the Chevy Volt commercial says she only buys gas about once per month, and if you buy a volt you can "save a crap load of money."

Really?

Let's overlook the many shortcomings of the Volt that have made it the worst selling car in history, and just concentrate on whether it can save you a crap load.

Many high mileage cars like the Hyundai or even the VW cost as little as $16,000. The Volt costs around $40,000 (with the subsidy).

The average driver burns through at least 10-20 gallons a week.

Assuming the volt uses NO gas at all, ever, at $4 a gallon the Volt "saves" you $40-$80 each week. At that rate it would take 300-600 weeks to save you enough to make up for the extra $24,000 the car cost (not counting interest if you got a car loan). For those not good at math, that's 6-12 years, just to break even. But the average person trades in their vehicle every 3-5 years. That means the Volt NEVER pays for itself, and certainly does not save you a "crap load of money." In fact, it COSTS you a crap load of money.

And that is if it NEVER burns gas. But, since it only gets about 26 miles to a 12 hour charge, chances are pretty good you would be burning a fair amount of gas. It is highly unlikely the Volt will pay for the extra money it costs even if you kept it for 20 years.

Gee --- maybe that is why it is the worst selling vehicle in history.

Only goes to show what can be expected when the government decides to pick winners and losers, and gambles taxpayer money on pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Huffington Post, AOL and several other liberal "news" outlets have been playing up a recent study that indicates 1 in 5 Wall Street people are psychopathic.

That may very well be true. But in their zeal to paint "Wall Street" as psycopathic there is another truth they are not mentioning - that 82% of Wall Streeters are liberals, living and working in one of the liberal capitals of the world.

What this means is, according to their own study and according to statistics, 4 out of 5 psychopaths are liberal.

We have all heard dozens of reasons health care is so much more expensive these days. But one thing they are not talking about is "The Scam".

That's right - patients are being regularly scammed every time they have a health issue. And the scam goes something like this:

"Yes, the doctor can see you. We'll make an appointment to look at the problem." Then another appointment to DEAL with the problem. And yet another appointment to check up on your "progress"

And in most cases, it could all have been completed in just one visit.

Here is a real-life example from just this morning. My wife lost a filling. Now, it was not long ago you could pop into any dentist's office and in 5 minutes he would take an x-ray, and 15 minutes later he would be packing a new filling. You're done.

But not today. Today it's "We'll set an appointment to LOOK at it, and take x-rays. Then we'll set another appointment (in other words, another costly office visit) to have the tooth filled."

Two costly office visits to perform one simple task that for a century only took minutes, but suddenly requires repeated visits. And that, my friend, is "the Scam".

This scam differs somewhat from one health professional to another. The biggest scam is that you simply cannot make an appointment directly with a specialist. No. You have to see a general prractitioner, first, and get "referred". Understand, you already know what specialist you need, but you cannot connect directly - you must pay other doctors, first.

And in many cases you get the "shuffle" - your general practitioner sends you to an expensive throat specialist. After he gets his hand in your pocket, he tells you that you need to see a different health professional for some additional treatment of sorts. And before you know it, you have seen - and paid - for several health practitioners to help you deal with a simple problem.

And they do these things because insurance lets them get away with it. If you had to pay the doctors out of your own pocket, you would never put up with it. But thanks to insurance, which just pays out, no questions asked, these medical miscreants can perpetrate as much fraud as they want.

I do not know what the solution is, but I think it begins with we, the people, starting to demand answers and accountability. Do not just shrug it off because your insurance company is paying - that just increases premiums. When you seek medical help, act as if the cost were coming directly out of your pocket. Hold practitioners accountable. Let them know you will not put up with unnecessary expense.

But it will ttake all of us to make a difference. We need to act together.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

It is no secret that the liberals of southern California have been running the state since the late 60's - and running it into the ground. And a recent survey shows that California is the "most hated state", nationally.

In fact, liberal politicians have wreaked so much havoc on the state that it may never recuperate.

204 California companies in 2010 either expanded in other states or moved out completely - four times the number in 2009. And in a recent survey by Hankin & Co., a Los Angeles consulting firm, 10 percent of the 90 Southern California companies responding said they "definitely" plan to move some or all operations from California within a year, and an additional 13 percent said they would "probably" do so.

And Silicon Valley and the San Francisco areas report similar stats. Richard Pimentel, managing partner in the accounting firm of BDO Seidman in San Francisco, says: "Any expansion by my clients is being done outside California. It just costs too much money to do business here."

So, what really gives? Excessive taxes on businesses are driving some out, while excessive regulations are causing others to leave the state. And excessive benefits for public union employees, and even residents. And all these businesses leaving, taking the jobs with them, has resulted in 200,000 residents to exodus the state each year.

And that means businesses, jobs, business taxes and even personal taxes are drying up, leaving the state bankrupt.

Factors that developed in recent years finally combined to provoke more than one company to move to Nevada. For one thing, crime got worse in California. And Nevada's business costs looked far preferable to California 's. Health-insurance premiums, which run to $8,000 per employee per year in California, will drop by half in Nevada, and workers' compensation insurance will be two-thirds of the $12,000 companies pay in many California communities.

What's more, Nevada doesn't tax income of individuals or businesses.

1,000 California firms responding to a survey by Kemper National Insurance Companies reported that they had laid off or decided against hiring a total of 10,000 workers because of workers' compensation costs. The companies cited fraud as the principal cause of that work-force reduction, an average of 10 jobs per company.

And now for the bad news...

Because of its size, California holds 11% of all seats in the Congressional House of Representatives - which explains why Congress has been so dysfunctional. And nearly 20% of all ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes are in California, so the state that is the very foundation of whacky liberalism can easily choose our president.

And there you have it, folks. There is little chance of cleaning up Washington and putting us back on firm footing unless we can either come together to outweigh the influence of California, or California finally comes out of their weed-induced fog and realizesthat liberalism is destroying them, and they move to another direction.

The latter is unlikely. So I would suggest the other 45 states, for their own survival, should come together and elect conservatives.

Yes, I said 45 states, because California, though the worst, is not the only bastion of liberalism. There is also New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. Together with California, those 5 states can run the entire country.

In regard to my post about the O'Reilly/Fluke flap, one reader responded as follows (my comments are inserted in blue italics):

"There are several problems with O'Reillys analysis - I'll focus on two. 1) Fluke's testimony wasn't focused on wanton sex or her own sex life. She shared a lengthy story of a friend with one of the medical conditions for which such drugs are prescribed."

[REPLY] That only represented a part of her testimony, not all of it. She did inject testimony in regard to contraception coverage in general, and her belief that somehow the taxpayer should pay for them to have sex. As for that specific student with a "medical condition" that requires a specific type of contraceptive, that is too bad - but in America, which is a REPUBLIC by law and not a Democracy, it is not up to government to force everyone to pay for one person. I am 100% certain there is a Planned Parenthood within taxi distance of Georgetown where she can get any kind of contraception at no cost.\

"I might add for some women pregnancy is medically contra-indicated and marital status plays no part in either medical diagnosis."

[REPLY] And just WHY should that put ME on the hook for her condition, or its costs? Why can't you liberals simply admit you have no use for personal responsibility - that you prefer to have others take care of you from cradle to grave?

"2) Pregnancy is a medical condition that must be covered by all insurance plans. Unless O'Reilly wants to exclude pregnancy from coverage, he's arguing he'd prefer to pay the higher costs associated with a pregnancy than pay the lower costs of preventative prescription drugs."

[REPLY] Wrong again. You are assuming that the only alternative to paying for pregnancy is to not pay for it. That is a bogus argument used by liberals to change the conversation. In fact, there are other options, such as not having unprotected sex unless you are willing to accept the consequences and support your own choices. Or, for the woman to buy her own contraceptives. Or, as MOST women do, have the MAN pay for them. No, sir, the choices are not as you would have us believe. O'Reilly and other conservatives don't mind that pregnancy is covered by insurance. But what we DO mind is paying for people to be promiscuous, and paying for their play, which is what the contraception thing is all about. It's not about pregnancy. We WELCOME new life. But we do not welcome paying people to engage in sex at the drop of a hat, without taking any responsibility for the consequences. I've said it many times - do not ask anyone else to abort - or support - your children. Sex is YOUR CHOICE. Do not ask me to pay for your choices.

>From an economic standpoint, that's nonsensical - when it comes to medicine, effective prevention is less costly. Effectiveness being the most important factor in prevention.

[REPLY] And I suppose you think contraception is the only form of prevention. Whatever happened to abstinence? And again, you are twisting the issue - it is not whether contraception will prevent pregnancy - it's about whether I should PAY for YOUR sex. And the answer is an emphatic "NO". Go ahead, have sex. Go ahead, use contraception. But YOU pay for it. Next thing you know you'll be asking taxpayers to pay for your hookers.

>O'Reilly's football analogy and your misunderstanding of how oral contraceptives work they're not taken like Viagra) make clear neither of you fully understand the reproductive systems of women

[REPLY] You have no idea as to my "understanding" of oral contraception. In fact, I never even mentioned that. Again, I know you are a liberal, but when trying to post here, at least make an attempt at honesty and leave the spin at home. I have probably forgotten more about oral contraception than you will ever know.

>or how ridiculous it is to think not "paying" for prevention means not "paying" for the possible consequences.

[REPLY] You liberals need to stop using bogus arguments of comparing oranges to apples. Let's see if you can understand a very simple concept, in simple English - CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO DESIRE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES. If it is YOUR choice to have sex, you take responsibility for it - including the cost of contraception, and either the cost to abort or to support any baby that comes about. YOU PAY FOR YOUR CHOICES. It is not as if someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to sleep around. No, it is YOUR CHOICE. You make it, you pay for it. Or have you never heard the old adage, "If YOU want to dance then YOU need to pay the piper (or put the money in the jukebox)." Asking someone else to pay for your contraception is no different from asking a stranger to put money in the jukebox so YOU can dance.

>You'd both be better off simply admitting this isn't about cost for you, it's about the moral distinction still made between men and women engaging in a natural biological activity.

[REPLY] My, how arrogant of you to tell me what I think or believe. It must be nice to be God. Look, pal, it has nothing to do with a moral distinction, as much as you would like people to believe it is. It is about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - something YOU obviously know nothing about. It's about me not wanting to pay for something that I don't even get to participate in. In short - if I am to pay for the sex, then I damned well better be the one getting the ecstacy from it. I could care less about your promiscuity - but I do care about not paying others to leech off the taxpayers, because I am one of those taxpayers. It's bad enough I am forced to pay to feed and house your illicit children even before I can feed my own family - the IRS takes it before I even get paid. Don't expect me to just sit back quietly while you try and tuck it up my butt by having me pay for your sex. Next you'll be asking me to pay for your vacation because it is good for your mental health. NO!!!!! Be a grown-up and take responsibility for yourself and your choices.

>If it weren't, we'd be arguing about whether women should have to "pay for" prostrate screenings/drugs or men should have to "pay for" mammograms. That's an inane argument because risk pooling is at the heart of affordable health insurance.

[REPLY] Again with the bogus argument. It has nothing to do with "risk pooling." It's about whether or not someone else should pay for YOUR fun, YOUR choices. Prostate screening and mammograns have nothing to do with your fun, your choices, so yes, they should be covered because cancer can happen to ANYONE and we have yet to figure out how to prevent it. But having sex is different - it is a choice you make, and the way to prevent it is to control yourself, and if you cannot, then have enough self-respect to pay for your own condoms.

As a final note to ALL liberals - I don't give a rat's butt what you do to yourselves, or what choices you make. I don't care if you choose to sleep around, or if you choose to have an abortion, or if you choose to rob a bank. In America, we have the freedom to make our own choices. But with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. YOU, not I, should pay for YOUR choices. And I, not you, should pay for mine.

Asking me to buy your contraceptives is like asking a man of the cloth to buy your ski-mask and gun so you can hold up a liquor store with greater safety. And when he declines, you accuse him of preferring to pay all the costs of taking him to court and housing him in prison for 10 years. You claim it would just be "cheaper to buy me what I need to get away with it."

Sorry, pal - I'd rather pay $30,000 a year to support a thief in prison than to pay him $300 to help him commit his crime and remain on the loose to do it over and over....

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Bill O'Reilly, in discussing the Sandra Fluke testimony over contraception made the valid point that he should not have to pay for someone else to have sex. But to listen to how the loony left spins it is comical, though despicable. Here is a quote from HuffPost/AOL, along with some comments made by their looney subscribers:

O'Reilly: "Let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I'm asking this with all due respect," he said. "You want me to give you my hard-earned money so you can have sex?" (Fluke is actually calling for her university's private insurance plan to cover birth control.)"

According to HuffPost, they claim because Fluke uses private university insurance that it does not cost O'Reilly a cent. But that is so bogus. Fluke, along with the rest of the left are not simply demanding that Georgetown University insurance pay for contraceptives. No sir. They are calling for ALL insurance companies to provide free contraception. And that makes every single American pay for it, because premiums are paid by all who have insurance. So, while HuffPost tries to minimalize O'Reilly by minimalizing the issue, the truth is O'Reilly is absolutely correct - if Fluke and her friends get their way, we will ALL be paying for her and her friends to have wanton sex.

Frankly, if I am going to pay for someone to have sex, that someone had better be me.

Now for some of the loony, nonsensical responses to the story:

capone58 said, "Typical - you'd rather pay to support an unplanned pregnancy resulting in another welfare baby then pay to prevent it in the first place. Since that makes no fiscal sense, it's a typical Republican stance."

[My Reply] Sorry, Capone, but you do not even understand the issue - it is not about pregnancy. It's about one person having to pay for another person to have sex - for O'Reilly to have to pay premiums to cover someone else's contraceptives. But for the sake of argument, you also lose on your position about "resulting in another welfare baby". Or perhaps you are too dumb to understand that the woman does not HAVE TO have sex. She can 1) but her own damned contraceptives, 2) have her sleep-mate buy them, or 3) keep her legs crossed. The point is simple, and I have made it many times before --- DO NOT ASK ME TO ABORT YOUR BABY OR SUPPORT YOUR BABY. Both are YOUR responsibility. And by the way, the "Republican stance" is not for there to be more welfare babies to support. The Republican stance is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY --- if you want to PLAY, then you should PAY.

MarinaLoves said, "not only women but men should be furious about this! you're not paying her to have sex you're paying so that she doesnt get pregnant!"

[MY REPLY] Wrong! The point O'Reilly and Republicans make is that we should not be paying for either. Why should we pay you to not get pregnant? That's a subsidy, like paying a farmer not to grow potatoes. Your sex life is not our concern, and regardless of WHAT choices you make, they are YOUR CHOICES. So YOU pay for them. I don't see you calling for insurance to cover my bill for natural foods. After all, they help prevent me from getting obese and sick from all the chemicals in other food. And a study shows that one beer a day helps keep a person healthy, so maybe you can call for insurance companies to buy my beer!

As a side note, Ms. Fluke stated that a female Georgetown University student would have to spend "$3,000 a year for contraceptives". Wow! If that is true, Georgetown female students must be having sex 12 times a day, 365 days a year. And if THAT is also true, then Limbaugh was right - they ARE "sluts". When do they have time to study?

Georgetown costs $63,000 a year. Any student who can afford that can afford 50 cents for a damned condom. And if she cannot afford the condom, perhaps she should abstain from sex and concentrate more on her studies.

My stance, and that of most conservatives is simple:

DO NOT ASK ME TO ABORT, OR SUPPORT, YOUR CHILDREN. THEY ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Always one to demean fellow Americans at every opportunity, President Obama, while stumping in New Hampshire, proclaimed that we are either dumb or dishonest. Here are his actual words: "Anybody who tells you that we can just drill our way out of this problem does not know what they're talking about, or they're not telling you the truth -- one or the other"

Both he and other Democrat leaders (Pelosi in particular) are now blaming speculators (after having blamed everything else, like Iran, Tsnamis, earthquakes, China etc.). I have lived through all presidents since Truman and never have I seen any president so quick to blame everyone else for his own inadequacies and failure to lead.

For those who are interested, there are several real reasons why gas prices are so high - and some can be laid at the door of Democrats. Others not so much. Yes, some can be attributed to speculators, but most, no.

1) Obama and his FED has devalued the dollar by printing huge amounts. When the dollar is devalued, it requires more dollars to get the same value. If Saudi merchants want $80 per barrel, but the dollar drops in value by 20%, then the Saudis would need to get $100/barrel in order to get the $80 it is worth. Devaluation of the dollar is a key reason for high prices

2) Federal gas taxes. The fed gets 12% tax on gas - the higher the price goes, the more taxes they collect. The tax at $2/gal is 24 cents, but on $4/gal it jumps to 48 cents.

3) Supplies are sold overseas where oil companies can make more profit. This helps keep prices high because they are selling supplies to the highest bidder.

4) We are not taking advantage of our own oil and gas reserves, and the Democrats have prevented the Keystone pipeline from being built. We are sitting on enough domestic oil and natural gas to power this country for a century.

5) Environmentalists have prevented refineries from being built, and now old ones are closing. And new EPA regulations have shut down 5 coal mines, which seriously affects the amount of energy available. Strange that Obama wants us to use electric cars, but shuts down the coal mines that fire the plants that produce 72% of all electricity in America.

Certainly there are other factors, but these are the major reasons, and combined they add more than $1.50 to every gallon of gas we buy.

No, Mr President, we are NOT dumb, nor are we dishonest. Wish we could say the same about you.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

It seems every day Bank of America comes up with a new way to rob us of our hard earned money. They wanted to increase fees, but were forced to back off. They rip off welfare people who use their welfare debit cards. They will this year rip off people in some states that get their state refunds in a debit card. And now they are saying customers MUST bank online, buy more stuff and maintain higher balances or face monthly fees of up to $25.

In other words, this rotten bank is telling customers they must either go further into debt or else, and they must risk their financial information with hackers by banking online, or else.

Since when should ANY bank give an "or else" ultimatum? Banks go out of business if not for their customers, so it is the CUSTOMER who has the power to say "or else." Bank of America needs its customers, but its customers do not need Bank of America - there are many other banks.

I said it in 1964, and I have said it ever since - banks are dangerous to your wealth. And Bank of America is the worst of all banks.

It's time every American who uses BofA finds a new bank. Frankly, I prefer a credit union.